Discussion
havoc said:
Not true
Where the output is readily exportable (e.g. textiles) then you have a point. But where it is difficult to transport (e.g. bulk, perishable...), difficult to export (regulations, desire for proximity...), or requires a face-to-face service (restaurants, taxis...), then it doesn't apply - straightforward supply and demand, where the barriers to entry on supply prevent imports.
You also need to look at the cost of living in the respective countries - the argument "I should only pay you $1 a day because that's the average wage in the Democratic Republic of Somewherestan" is utterly fallacious if the typical cost of housing in DRS is $0.20 a day, vs e.g. $25 a day in the UK.
Foundations on sand right there.Where the output is readily exportable (e.g. textiles) then you have a point. But where it is difficult to transport (e.g. bulk, perishable...), difficult to export (regulations, desire for proximity...), or requires a face-to-face service (restaurants, taxis...), then it doesn't apply - straightforward supply and demand, where the barriers to entry on supply prevent imports.
You also need to look at the cost of living in the respective countries - the argument "I should only pay you $1 a day because that's the average wage in the Democratic Republic of Somewherestan" is utterly fallacious if the typical cost of housing in DRS is $0.20 a day, vs e.g. $25 a day in the UK.
The cost differential drives innovation to close the gaps you point to: bulk - build bigger ships to reduce costs; perishable- develop improved preservation; regulations - lobby for deregulation etc.
Cost of living argument is more durable, but still falls down. In the uk, for instance, by the taxpayer contributing (tax credits etc) to subsidise wages and housing costs, artificially maintaining the gap
Fundamentally, when the capability and desire exists to do a job for £1, anyone expecting £100 for the same job needs to work harder to maintain that gap than the body charging £1 needs to work to close the gap.
Doesn't happen overnight, just as houses built on sand don't fall down overnight.
Maugham has now appealed HMRC's decision not to allow him to claim back the VAT on the Uber journey that he is using in this case
https://goodlawproject.org/uber-appeal-tax-tribuna...
He is using George Peretz QC and Brendan McGurk of Monckton Chambers
https://goodlawproject.org/uber-appeal-tax-tribuna...
He is using George Peretz QC and Brendan McGurk of Monckton Chambers
On the topic of "gig economy" vs "exploiting low paid workers" I used to run a business (one of the first in London) that created a "gig exonomy" using between-roles actors to perform various other tasks.
They were self-employed. They wished to be self-employed. The work available would not have existed at such attractive rates of pay if they had not been (because they got paid a decent whack for work done, not a much lower amount per hour just to be available).
We had 3500 gig-workers on our books; it was not trivially small.
Most of history has involved people being paid for work, not paid to work. It is an unusual historical wrinkle that we have so many salaries. There are vested interests - a population more free-wheeling, more attuned to their worth and their business, might not be so pliant. They would certainly be less likely to so readily jump into debt to consume.
VAT - and in particular VAT thresholds - are the problems here. An easily-avoided regressive tax with vast collection and accounting costs is about as far removed from a fair taxation system as it is possible to imagine.
Instead of worrying about Uber now, perhaps the real energy should be invested in lobbying for what will replace it assuming we do in fact leave the EU?
They were self-employed. They wished to be self-employed. The work available would not have existed at such attractive rates of pay if they had not been (because they got paid a decent whack for work done, not a much lower amount per hour just to be available).
We had 3500 gig-workers on our books; it was not trivially small.
Most of history has involved people being paid for work, not paid to work. It is an unusual historical wrinkle that we have so many salaries. There are vested interests - a population more free-wheeling, more attuned to their worth and their business, might not be so pliant. They would certainly be less likely to so readily jump into debt to consume.
VAT - and in particular VAT thresholds - are the problems here. An easily-avoided regressive tax with vast collection and accounting costs is about as far removed from a fair taxation system as it is possible to imagine.
Instead of worrying about Uber now, perhaps the real energy should be invested in lobbying for what will replace it assuming we do in fact leave the EU?
A press release on the ruling by the CJEU that will give Maugham further cheer in respect of his case
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 20th December 09:11
JPJPJP said:
A press release on the ruling by the CJEU that will give Maugham further cheer in respect of his case
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
What does all that mean?https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
Edited by JPJPJP on Wednesday 20th December 09:11
JPJPJP said:
A press release on the ruling by the CJEU that will give Maugham further cheer in respect of his case
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
The first bit doesn't surprise me at all. Surely people only get an Uber because it's an established, "reliable" company - vis a vis the journey, not the app. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicati...
"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport"
Key section (imo)
The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’.
ETA that Maugham is indeed trumpeting this as support to his case
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943404928...
Moreover (and more interestingly) he claims to now have direct evidence of why HMRC is failing to apply the law to some US MNCs and that he expects to be in a position to release that evidence shortly.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/943407199...
Edited by JPJPJP on Wednesday 20th December 09:11
The second bit is intriguing and will be interesting to see what substance there is to that.
The Mad Monk said:
What does all that mean?
The regulations a company has to abide by are determined by what goods/services that company is CLASSIFIED as supplying.Uber claimed they weren't supplying transport, merely data (matching 3P supply with 3P demand)...so they'd have been bound by 1 set of regs for the whole of the EU (and not had to worry about stuff like licences).
EU court has decided that they ARE supplying transport, which means they need to apply for local licences - a LOT more red tape, a LOT more cost, a LOT more hassle for Uber.
havoc said:
The regulations a company has to abide by are determined by what goods/services that company is CLASSIFIED as supplying.
Uber claimed they weren't supplying transport, merely data (matching 3P supply with 3P demand)...so they'd have been bound by 1 set of regs for the whole of the EU (and not had to worry about stuff like licences).
EU court has decided that they ARE supplying transport, which means they need to apply for local licences - a LOT more red tape, a LOT more cost, a LOT more hassle for Uber.
Not long until self driving cars then they will have none of the aforementioned problems.Uber claimed they weren't supplying transport, merely data (matching 3P supply with 3P demand)...so they'd have been bound by 1 set of regs for the whole of the EU (and not had to worry about stuff like licences).
EU court has decided that they ARE supplying transport, which means they need to apply for local licences - a LOT more red tape, a LOT more cost, a LOT more hassle for Uber.
I can't wait until we get to exclude humans out of the equation as they're the real problem in all of this mess. They will never go on strike, protest, rape a passenger or hopefully crash a car. Or have xmas day off or 2x the rate.
ninja-lewis said:
I thought he was going to expose the reasons why HRMC are reluctant to make assessments against US inbounds. He hasn't done that. He hasn’t yet revealed the evidence he has which he claims shows why HMRC appears to some to be lax on taxing mncs
The update does address why HMRC should make Uber it’s sixth attempt at a principal vs agent tax liability case (having lost the previous five)
And why HMRC could (& should) raise a protective assessment on the potential vat liability that might arise
It is clear that Maugham has the ear of members of the PAC and, in his role, he will have regular contact with HMRC staff and officials
I expect he will, one way or another, get this in front of a court or tax tribunal in 2018.
Let’s see
The update does address why HMRC should make Uber it’s sixth attempt at a principal vs agent tax liability case (having lost the previous five)
And why HMRC could (& should) raise a protective assessment on the potential vat liability that might arise
It is clear that Maugham has the ear of members of the PAC and, in his role, he will have regular contact with HMRC staff and officials
I expect he will, one way or another, get this in front of a court or tax tribunal in 2018.
Let’s see
JPJPJP said:
He hasn’t yet revealed the evidence he has which he claims shows why HMRC appears to some to be lax on taxing mncs
The update does address why HMRC should make Uber it’s sixth attempt at a principal vs agent tax liability case (having lost the previous five)
And why HMRC could (& should) raise a protective assessment on the potential vat liability that might arise
It is clear that Maugham has the ear of members of the PAC and, in his role, he will have regular contact with HMRC staff and officials
I expect he will, one way or another, get this in front of a court or tax tribunal in 2018.
Let’s see
What is your agenda on this?The update does address why HMRC should make Uber it’s sixth attempt at a principal vs agent tax liability case (having lost the previous five)
And why HMRC could (& should) raise a protective assessment on the potential vat liability that might arise
It is clear that Maugham has the ear of members of the PAC and, in his role, he will have regular contact with HMRC staff and officials
I expect he will, one way or another, get this in front of a court or tax tribunal in 2018.
Let’s see
You asked the same question many pages back. Here is the answer I gave then. It hasn't changed.
"At the risk of repeating myself (again), I am interested in why it is taking a private prosecution to get the question of a potential several hundred million pound VAT liability looked at.
That it is Uber that is involved is of no real interest to me.
That it isn't HMRC that is being seen to be asking the question is of great interest to me"
"At the risk of repeating myself (again), I am interested in why it is taking a private prosecution to get the question of a potential several hundred million pound VAT liability looked at.
That it is Uber that is involved is of no real interest to me.
That it isn't HMRC that is being seen to be asking the question is of great interest to me"
havoc said:
JPJPJP said:
That it isn't HMRC that is being seen to be asking the question is of great interest to me
Me too, both professionally and as someone who despises the increasing influence MNCs have on governments.
).We also have no idea whether they aren't already dealing with bigger, perhaps more likely to be fruitful, fish.
Personally I don't want litigious lawyers trying to influence/dictate HMRC's priorities as much as I don't want MNC's doing the same. It's possibly too late for all of that though, which doesn't bode well for the future and I suspect will harm those Maugham no doubt thinks he is doing a favour for.
HMRC are a feckin shambles. As is our tax code. If this action stood any chance of improving either I'd be hugely supportive of it. But it won't.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff